31371d2dad
[ Upstream commit 3d3a2e610ea5e7c6d4f9481ecce5d8e2d8317843 ]
Currently the code assumes that there's an implied barrier by the
sequence of code preceding the wakeup, namely the mutex unlock.
As Nikolay pointed out:
I think this is wrong (not your code) but the original assumption that
the RELEASE semantics provided by mutex_unlock is sufficient.
According to memory-barriers.txt:
Section 'LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS' states:
(2) RELEASE operation implication:
Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the
RELEASE operation has completed.
Memory operations issued after the RELEASE *may* be completed before the
RELEASE operation has completed.
(I've bolded the may portion)
The example given there:
As an example, consider the following:
*A = a;
*B = b;
ACQUIRE
*C = c;
*D = d;
RELEASE
*E = e;
*F = f;
The following sequence of events is acceptable:
ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE
So if we assume that *C is modifying the flag which the waitqueue is checking,
and *E is the actual wakeup, then those accesses can be re-ordered...
IMHO this code should be considered broken...
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Linux kernel ============ This file was moved to Documentation/admin-guide/README.rst Please notice that there are several guides for kernel developers and users. These guides can be rendered in a number of formats, like HTML and PDF. In order to build the documentation, use ``make htmldocs`` or ``make pdfdocs``. There are various text files in the Documentation/ subdirectory, several of them using the Restructured Text markup notation. See Documentation/00-INDEX for a list of what is contained in each file. Please read the Documentation/process/changes.rst file, as it contains the requirements for building and running the kernel, and information about the problems which may result by upgrading your kernel.